Message from @Sorghagtani Beki
Discord ID: 324036692568834048
Cosmonaut 👩🚀
What is the futility in creating new arguments?
lmao fuck Azov
I specially by theologians who make arguments for the existence of God based on oversimplified observations. They are, as Freuerbach put it, trying to 'deduce empirical existence from an a priori idea'.
They are perfectly happy to accept their conclusions right up until they are empirically shown to be wrong.
I disagree with religion in that it teaches you to be content with no motivation to search for more
They assume an Absolute existence based on a temporary existence.
It would be worse if they did not accept empirical evidence
There are still evolution deniers
If the Church ever has to retract Aquinas' argument, based on 'all things that move are moved by other things' (Compendium of Theology), because science refutes it, then whole thing goes down.
Catholics don't deny evolution.
It won't go down. They will simply say that they believe in God through faith, as most Christians today do
However, it would be vulnerable to other religions claiming the same
In which case whose is better? There would be no answer
They would jump to trying to prove Jesus' resurrection again
Proving that the theology of the Church was based on an irrational basis, is enough for me.
It would not necessarily be the end of the religion in any major way
Never said it would.
But at least I will have no more reservations about setting myself against them, and I can forward such refutes to other intelligent individuals who are unsure about it as I am.
You can refute it already
Make an argument on geographical favoritism
Tengri, is that you?
No
His argument convinced me though
It's a silly argument.
I agree with Tengri too.
But he does make a fair point
Christianity claims god is just and the argument on geographical favoritism clearly puts itself against that claim
The empirical proof would be a world map on religious composition
In principal, only a perfect God can know what is perfect good. Reservations about the realities of Him come from an anthropological basis. You have to first grant that you would know better than a perfect being, which you don't.
So essentially this is the same as arguing that "God is mysterious in his ways"
What is the difference between this and the guy's claim that Tengri is mysterious in making all religions lead to him?
The difference is logical coherency. The 'all roads lead to Tengri' argument is based on a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Whereas the perfect God argument is based on the premise that a God exists.
If the premise is that Tengri exists, shouldn't the all religions argument also work for Tengriism?
If Tengri is God, the Tengriist make additional claims about his nature. You need to follow up with additional arguments.
An omnipotent god would be a perfect god, logically